Advocacy & Safety - New cycling laws in Virginia (USA)

Bicycle, mopeds, roller skates, skateboard and electric personal assistive mobility devices. New legislation clarifies roadway use and practices:

Vehicle drivers passing another bicycle (or motor vehicle) in the same direction, must pass at least two feet to the left of the overtaken vehicle.
A person operating a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric assistive mobility device, electric power assisted bike or moped may signal a right turn by extending the right hand and arm in a horizontal position straight from and level with the shoulder. Individuals also may indicate slowing down or stopping by extending the right arm downward.
Individuals riding a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric assistive mobility device, electric power assisted bike or moped on a highway may ride side-by-side, if they do not impede traffic flow.
Helmets required by local ordinances for persons riding bicycles, electric bicycle, electric assistive mobility devices, electric power assisted bikes or mopeds must meet the Consumer Product Safety Commission standard.
If on the highway, roller skaters, skateboarders or users of riding toys or other devices on wheels or runners must keep as near as safely possible to the far right side or edge of the right traffic lane, in the same direction as other traffic.
Between sunset and sunrise, a front headlight is required for anyone riding a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric assistive mobility device, electric power assisted bike or moped. The headlight must emit a white light visible from at least 500 feet. A red reflector also is required, and must be visible from at least 600 feet when directly in front of a motor vehicle with lawful low beam headlights.


I'm not quite sure how to interpret the helmet law, but I think it's saying if your locality requires a helmet, it must meet the CPSC standard. Anyhow, I think it's all good.

Here's the web-site: http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/general/news/news.asp?id=4361

The helmet provision was added to appease the helmet manufactuers lobby. It requires helmets to meet CPSC guidlines, but leaves mandatory hlemet laws up to local muncipalities and counties.

Exactly Leslie. I dont know, all those laws with signaling and passing are standard laws in most states. Doesn't mean it happens, or is even bothered with. The one time I have been pulled over from "breaking" a bicycle law was when I was on a Navy base and I didn't have a rear light before dusk.
It's all well in good, but there aren't enough police to crack down on bicycle safetly laws....

I'm still trying to figure out how these are "new" in anyway. Does anyone have any idea what the law read before?

Does anyone have any idea what the law read before?
I don't think there was any specific requirement for passing clearance, hence little legal recourse in the event of a related injury.
Only the standard signals, given with the left hand, were legal. Motor vehicle drivers have no need to know them, since electric turn signals are standard. Pointing or using either arm makes more sense.
The law required bikes to ride single file, regardless of whether there was traffic (we've always ignored that one).
I think the old law required riders to "ride as far to the right as practicable" (whatever that means), requiring the lawyer to make the case re/safety in a trial or with insurance settlements.
I *think* the headlight/tail light law increases the visibility distance requirement.

And, as Arsbars points out, the new laws have no more teeth than the old laws. In my opinion, it is mainly a moral victory, as I believe they are generally pro-cyclist (moped, skater, etc.).

Here in N/Z the road code provides for 1.5 mtrs but I would bet that very few car driver's know that, they never ask cycle / car related questions for the drivers test !

And, as Arsbars points out, the new laws have no more teeth than the old laws. In my opinion, it is mainly a moral victory, as I believe they are generally pro-cyclist (moped, skater, etc.).

The point is, thought, that they are old laws. Apart from the helmet law (they are mandatory out here), they've been law here in Queensland for as long as I can remember (which probably means they were law in every other Australian state at least 10 years before that). Although we still have "as far to the left as practicable", which I probably prefer to the old "safety" law. In my view, the practicable law is clearer, and has a far wider application.

Here in N/Z the road code provides for 1.5 mtrs but I would bet that very few car driver's know that, they never ask cycle / car related questions for the drivers test !

Yep, we get 1 metre over here. Of course, if they enforced that one here on the Gold Coast for just one day, there would be enough revenue generated out of fines to fund the total and complete abolition of all forms of taxation in the entire country for a year.

Yep, we get 1 metre over here. Of course, if they enforced that one here on the Gold Coast for just one day, there would be enough revenue generated out of fines to fund the total and complete abolition of all forms of taxation in the entire country for a year.
On traffic circles truckies are usualy minus 1.5 mtrs as they ride up the kerb & onto the sidewalk :mad:

On traffic circles truckies are usualy minus 1.5 mtrs as they ride up the kerb & onto the sidewalk :mad:

Yep, same here. This is why in those situations I always make sure I claim at least one lane.

Me too ! but then the buggers overtake you as you're allready turning left& sideswipe you with the trailer, arseholes that they are :eek:

The helmet provision was added to appease the helmet manufactuers lobby. It requires helmets to meet CPSC guidlines, but leaves mandatory hlemet laws up to local muncipalities and counties.

The helmet requirement is redundant since all cycling helmets sold in the US are required to meet CPSC requirements.

The helmet requirement is redundant since all cycling helmets sold in the US are required to meet CPSC requirements.

All new bicycle helmets may be, but that doesn't mean that there are a variety of non-bike helmet options that someone could wear (construction, toy fireman hat, old army helmet, etc.)

Al

All new bicycle helmets may be, but that doesn't mean that there are a variety of non-bike helmet options that someone could wear (construction, toy fireman hat, old army helmet, etc.)

Al

But the law does not mandate what helmet a cyclist must wear. It only specifies the type of helmet a municipality may require a cyclist to wear, should the municipality choose to do so. It's hard to believe that a municipailty in Virginia would try to mandate a toy fireman hat, or any other non-cycling hat, for cyclists.

But, should they try, the state has got you covered!

Laws don't just tell the people whatthey can't do, some clarify what is allowed. South Carolina has a law allowing cyclists to use a rear facing blinking red light. These new laws in Virginia allow cyclists to use thier right arm to signal, the law orginally stated left arm signals only.

A person operating a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric assistive mobility device, electric power assisted bike or moped may signal a right turn...
The inclusion of these vehicles is good.


If on the highway, roller skaters, skateboarders or users of riding toys or other devices on wheels or runners must keep as near as safely possible to the far right...
I have questions about toys on the highway, but bicycles are specifically not referred to as, "riding toys." That's also good.


Vehicle drivers passing another bicycle (or motor vehicle) in the same direction, must pass at least two feet to the left of the overtaken vehicle.
I have serious concerns about this provision. Two feet of clearance is 33% less than the law currently allows in Georgia. I'd gladly ban roller bladers and skateboarders on the highway and keep my three-foot clearance, in fact, I'd like four feet.

:D

I have serious concerns about this provision. Two feet of clearance is 33% less than the law currently allows in Georgia. I'd gladly ban roller bladers and skateboarders on the highway and keep my three-foot clearance, in fact, I'd like four feet.


Again, it's a question of enforcement. Although the law provides for 1 meter (about three feet) out here, about the only way you'll get that sort of clearance around here is to simply claim that portion of the road by virtue of your riding position.

But the law does not mandate what helmet a cyclist must wear. It only specifies the type of helmet a municipality may require a cyclist to wear, should the municipality choose to do so. It's hard to believe that a municipailty in Virginia would try to mandate a toy fireman hat, or any other non-cycling hat, for cyclists.

But, should they try, the state has got you covered!

I interpreted the law to read that IF a local ordinace required helmets that those helmets must meet CPSC standards:

"Helmets required by local ordinances for persons riding bicycles, electric bicycle, electric assistive mobility devices, electric power assisted bikes or mopeds must meet the Consumer Product Safety Commission standard. "

I suggested that saying they must be CPSC standard is not redundant because not all helmets are (and gave some examples of what may be called a helmet.) This way a local ordinance can not say "cyclists must wear helmet", which has a loophole as helmet is too broad a definition, instead they must say "cyclist must wear a CPSC standard helmet"

Al

Again, it's a question of enforcement. Although the law provides for 1 meter (about three feet) out here, about the only way you'll get that sort of clearance around here is to simply claim that portion of the road by virtue of your riding position.
Yet again Chris is right ! The protection is there but the law does'nt enforce it & it is little known by the majority of road user's as it is hidden away in the Road Code's "other road users" bit.
We've had a " look-out for cyclist" campaign recently ,here in the Bay of Plenty & not once was this law pointed out ! Most of the focus was directed at the cyclist i.e be carfull when passing parked cars that the driver dos'nt open his door : wear bright clothing ect ect, All good advice but I think the motorist should be told to look before opening their door, the way the campaign was run, a driver would think it was the cyclist's responsibility to avoid being doored & that if it did happen it would be the cyclist fault for not "watching out" ! Our road code allow's 1.5 metres for cyclists, no were does it state that a cyclist must wear a Ronald McDonald suit while riding his/her cycle on the highway, so why mention the bright clothes bit without reveiling the "secret law" that, if enforced would cut down injuries to cyclists by 50% plus.
My rant for the week :eek:

Enforcement is always a big issue. I have the Beaufort County, SC Sheriff, P.J. Tanner, on record stating bicycles aren't a big concern to him and his deparrtment. Yet, he has 60 miles of dedicated bike paths, trails, and lanes in his county and one of the largest cycling clubs in South Carolina (Sun City Cyclers).

Yet again Chris is right ! The protection is there but the law does'nt enforce it & it is little known by the majority of road user's as it is hidden away in the Road Code's "other road users" bit.
We've had a " look-out for cyclist" campaign recently ,here in the Bay of Plenty & not once was this law pointed out ! Most of the focus was directed at the cyclist i.e be carfull when passing parked cars that the driver dos'nt open his door : wear bright clothing ect ect, All good advice but I think the motorist should be told to look before opening their door, the way the campaign was run, a driver would think it was the cyclist's responsibility to avoid being doored & that if it did happen it would be the cyclist fault for not "watching out" ! Our road code allow's 1.5 metres for cyclists, no were does it state that a cyclist must wear a Ronald McDonald suit while riding his/her cycle on the highway, so why mention the bright clothes bit without reveiling the "secret law" that, if enforced would cut down injuries to cyclists by 50% plus.
My rant for the week :eek:

Well, since a police officer is going to have to see cars pass you too closely, don't expect a big enforcement action. If anything, I find motorists to be very courteous when there's a cop in the area.

The reason why there are campaigns advising us to be visible and careful how we ride is because we are the ones who lose in a confrontation with an automobile. It's up to us to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves. There will always be bad drivers and it just takes one to spoil your whole day.

Well, since a police officer is going to have to see cars pass you too closely, don't expect a big enforcement action. If anything, I find motorists to be very courteous when there's a cop in the area.

Not necessarily true. If the government can spend millions of dollars on speed and red light cameras, surely they can spend the money to enforce this particular area of the law. After all, it would pay for itself with fines in the long run.


The reason why there are campaigns advising us to be visible and careful how we ride is because we are the ones who lose in a confrontation with an automobile. It's up to us to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves. There will always be bad drivers and it just takes one to spoil your whole day.

Advertising is all very well, but it won't make people change their behaviour one bit if it's not backed up with some teeth.

Well, since a police officer is going to have to see cars pass you too closely, don't expect a big enforcement action. If anything, I find motorists to be very courteous when there's a cop in the area.


I've had a cop see cars passing too closely to me. His response was to pull me over and try to tell me to get off the road, as if it was MY fault that others were driving dangerously. I guess I was the easy option.

BTW, Chris, the 1m law no longer exists. That was actually spelled out in the pre-1999 rules, but it's now been replaced with a much more vague 'sufficient distance to avoid a collision' clause, which some people seem to interpret as 1mm or more.

BTW, Chris, the 1m law no longer exists. That was actually spelled out in the pre-1999 rules, but it's now been replaced with a much more vague 'sufficient distance to avoid a collision' clause, which some people seem to interpret as 1mm or more.

Thanks for clarifying that. It does explain a thing or two. Although I don't think the old law was ever enforced anyway.

I've had a cop see cars passing too closely to me. His response was to pull me over and try to tell me to get off the road, as if it was MY fault that others were driving dangerously.
My point exactly ,without a bit of enlightening drivers will be convinced they are blameless of any accidents they cause : eg: "he could'nt have been looking where he was going properly when I opened my car door, bloody fool !" ect, ect.